Monday, April 17, 2017

Is The DCCC Missing The Great Sleeper Issue Of 2018? Take Wisconsin Reactionary James Sensenbrenner

Last November John Sensenbrenner-- first elected in 1978 to represent the suburbs west of Milwaukee, Waukesha and Washington, Jefferson and Dodge counties further out-- was reelected against Democrat Khary Penebaker 260,703 (66.8%) to 114,469 (29.3%). WI-05 is the most Republican and most right-wing district in Wisconsin. Waukesha county is the beating heart of everything that has gone wrong in the state in the last decade. In 2014 Sensenbrenner had been reelected with 70%, in 2012 with 68%, 70% in 2010, In the Democratic wave election in 2008, the Democrats didn't run a candidate against Sensenbrenner and two years earlier, Sensenbrenner weathered the Democratic wave election with a 62% win. Trump beat Hillary in WI-05 57.4% to 37.3%, underperforming Romney who won the district with 61.3%. With an 89.8% white population, the PVI is R+13, worst in the state. The DCCC has never taken Sensebrenner on-- not once... and have no intention of doing so in 2018 either.A multimillionaire who led the House Science Committee as an anti-Science bastion even before Lamar Smith took over, the 380 pound Sensebrenner, who will be 74 in June, waged a war against Michelle Obama's attempts to teach school children about healthy eating, which the repulsive and slovenly Sensebrenner took as a personal affront. He was famously quoted as saying she had no right to "lecture us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself."Thursday Sensenbrenner had a small town hall meeting in his district as an elder woman complained about his vote to allow internet providers to sell her personal information to whomever they choose without informing her, let alone getting her permission. "Facebook is not comparable to an ISP. I do not have to go to Facebook," the town hall attendee told Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "I do have one provider... I have one choice. I don't have to go on Google. My ISP provider is different than those providers."

In response, Sensenbrenner, who voted to scrap the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules that were set to take effect at the end of this year, said:"Nobody's got to use the Internet… And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet... Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now. The fact is is that, you know, I don't think it's my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make that choice... That's what the law has been, and I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives."Brad Bainum, a spokesman for American Bridge, a liberal super PAC, tweeted a video of Sensenbrenner responding to the constituent's question: "@JimPressOffice tells his constituents not to use the internet if they don't like his vote to sell out their privacy to advertisers."Sensenbrenner's press office responded to the tweet, reiterating the congressman's comment: "Actually, he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference."...Sensenbrenner's statement has since drawn criticism from social-media users. Some accused the 73-year-old congressman of being out of touch in the digital age, when something as basic as paying the bills, buying clothes or finding a job is done online."Nobody has to use indoor plumbing or electricity. They can just use outhouses and kerosene lamps. They have a choice, right?" one Twitter user wrote."Nobody has to use the Internet? Many jobs require it. Schools require it. Take his office Internet away, maybe?" said another."I'm an online editor. I have to use the Internet. Welcome to 2017," another one wrote.The Internet has become such a fixed part of people's everyday lives, the United Nations considers access to it a human right. In 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution declaring that denying someone the ability to access or disseminate information online is a human rights violation.The measures approved during the Obama administration would've required telecommunication carriers to inform their customers that they can opt in or opt out from allowing companies to share their confidential information. Republicans viewed the regulations as burdensome and excessive.Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed the bill, nullifying the Obama measures. This means that providers will be able to monitor their customers' online behavior and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ad spaces, The Post's Brian Fung wrote...."President Trump just killed any hope that Americans would enjoy basic privacy protections online," Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said in a statement. "By signing this bill, Mr. Trump has allied himself with the telecommunications and digital media giants who seek to profit from every detail of our lives."

This could be the big sleeper issue of 2018. Every single Democrat voted against it and all but 15 Republicans with for it (the way Sensenbrenner dd). The DCCC doesn't understand how potent the issue is and, besides, even if it infuriates moderate voters across the political spectrum, if the DCCC doesn't run candidates against reactionary assholes like Sensenbrenner... the anger doesn't do much good, does it?

6 Comments:

The anti-internetprivacy thing is very lucrative and important to some of the largest corporations and interstate monopolies around.

Republicans don't give a flying fuck about the constitution, in this case the 4th amendment, but particularly in anything regarding simple human decency. Of COURSE they vote for this.

Democraps, servers of corporate donors over people when those donors really, REALLY want something, only voted nay because they are numerically irrelevant. I'm quite sure that scummer's whip (the house was never in question) was consulted before he gave his caucus permission to all vote nay.

As we saw in 2009, when the Democraps have RELEVANT numbers, they always managed to have enough of their caucus vote with the corporations to either give the donors what they want or prevent their party from doing something their donors didn't want.

Never ever be fooled by what democraps do, either in what bills they propose or in their voting on other bills, when their numbers are of no relevance. They will vote liberal/progressive only for show when it doesn't matter. There really aren't that many who are sincere.